<p>Can anyone help identify six or seven top science programs in LAC's, particularly with respect to physics and chemistry? My S is leaning toward going to an LAC but also wants to go on to a grad school in one of the sciences, en route to teaching or research.</p>
<p>[Top</a> Colleges - U.S. Liberal Arts Colleges - List of Ten Top Colleges](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/choosingacollege/tp/top_colleges.htm]Top”>Top 30 Liberal Arts Colleges in the U.S.)</p>
<p>Here’s a link with some info.</p>
<p>I think you have to include Harvey Mudd in there. I think they produce per capita the second greatest number of Physics Ph.D’s (only behind Caltech) and the greatest number of Chemistry Ph.D’s.</p>
<p>That is according to this:
<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html[/url]”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wesleyan.edu/sciences/sciencefacts.html[/url]”>http://www.wesleyan.edu/sciences/sciencefacts.html</a></p>
<p>One fact not mentioned is that Wesleyan is the #1 LAC for annual research expenditures (at > $8M/year).</p>
<p>
Another is that it is one of the few LACs, as is Bryn Mawr, to offer PhD programs in the sciences. What effect this has on the undergraduate programs, if any, I can’t say. </p>
<p>The following six LACs are frequently claimed to have some of the best science programs:</p>
<p>Carleton College
Grinnell College
Harvey Mudd College
Haverford College
Reed College
Swarthmore College</p>
<p>There are many other excellent LACs for the sciences. A few suggestions of varying selectivity and location:</p>
<p>Allegheny College
Amherst College
Bowdoin College
Colgate University
Davidson College
Earlham College
Franklin & Marshall College
Furman University
Hope College
Lawrence University
Middlebury College
Oberlin College
Occidental College
Pomona College
Rhodes College
Williams College</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Isn’t one of the key defining features of LACs is that they do NOT offer PhDs nor do they put much focus/effort on research? Based on the usual definition, I’d say Wesleyan is a small university (and even say so in its name) rather than an LAC.</p>
<p>I’ll weigh in on Allegheny since it is currently my daughter’s first choice and I have read almost everything I could about the school. They seem to be very strong in the sciences, high med school acceptance rate, newer science building which I read has facilities rated second only to Columbia and that the Allegheny facilities are serving as a model for other schools improving their facilities, recent grant from Arthur Vining Davis Foundation for a geographic information systen lab…</p>
<p>I’ve heard that Colorado College is very strong in the sciences. It would be worth checking out.</p>
<p>Holy Cross, Wesleyan, F&M.</p>
<p>I love this video about Science at Grinnell.
[YouTube</a> - Grinnell College "That’s Science. This is Grinnell"](<a href=“Grinnell College "That's Science. This is Grinnell" - YouTube”>Grinnell College "That's Science. This is Grinnell" - YouTube)</p>
<p>Williams is excellent in Math and Physics. There are lots of Bio majors as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck. At ~2,750 undergraduates and 300 graduate students, Wesleyan has more in common with Williams than with Cornell.</p>
<p>Of course, for all undergrad education, Caltech is essentially a ‘LAC’, and the top one at that, for science.</p>
<p>With Harvey Mudd in the 'hood, all of the Claremont Colleges should be considered since cross-registration is seamless.</p>
<p>
Small size does not a LAC make. It’s highly doubtful that a school where graduate students outnumber undergraduates can be considered a LAC. Despite Caltech’s offerings in the social sciences, moreover, a school that has only 1% of it students majoring outside of STEM fields can not really be considered a liberal arts school in the true sense of the term. </p>
<p>Caltech does fall into the category of small universities strong in the sciences, however, as do Dartmouth, Rice, Brandeis, and a few others.</p>
<p>I would add the College of Wooster to this list. </p>
<p>If it hasn’t been mentioned, I’d also add Earlham College, which is quite strong as well.</p>
<p>Look at some programs at Ohio Wesleyan too.</p>
<p>I would add Wabash College and Beloit.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/1006939-princeton-2010-national-research-council-nrc-rankings-news-item.html#post11257461[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/1006939-princeton-2010-national-research-council-nrc-rankings-news-item.html#post11257461</a></p>
<p>Did you know Caltech Economics is ranked #8, only just behind Stanford, but ahead of Yale and NYU, and much better than UCLA ?? Don’t count them out in ‘lac’ education in social and literal sciences just because they are so strong in STEM. Their comparative strength in STEM shouldn’t be a reason to discount their education in other aspects.</p>
<p>[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)
Interesting that UG UCLA-educated per-capita PhD count is never in top 10 in any field, be it life science, social science, english/literal science, or humanities.</p>
<p>Here is a link to the NSF study on which colleges produce the most PhDs (by percentage) in science and engineering. [nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/]nsf.gov”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/) The top 10 LACs, in order, are Harvey Mudd (24.9%), Reed, Swarthmore, Carelton, Grinnell, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Pomona, Williams and Oberlin (8.9%). The only school to out produce Harvey Mudd is Caltec.</p>
<p>
You evidently missed the point of my post. I readily acknowledged that Caltech has decent offerings in areas outside of the sciences; it would probably surprise some people to learn that it does offer courses in areas like art history and music, albeit decidedly limited in scope and number. As you noted, it’s rather well-known that Caltech has a good economics program. Still, the fact remains that virtually all (99%) of the students at Caltech are majoring in the sciences or engineering. Students choose Caltech because they want to live and breathe math and science. A student choosing Swarthmore, on the other hand, might want to major in math/science but also be exposed to classmates majoring in music, classics, Japanese, and the like. That is not possible, at least to anywhere near the same extent, at Caltech. </p>
<p>
I am not quite sure how UCLA entered a thread about LACs, unless it’s a jab at my school – in which case you’ve clearly never read my posts, as I’m not particularly hesitant to point out deficiencies in the colleges I’ve attended. In any case, publics rarely do well in such measures. Why this should be is, of course, open to debate.</p>
<p>PhD-per-capita counts are interesting but should be considered within context. For one, quality of programs should be considered. There is a difference between getting 2 students into history at Yale and 4 into history at Northwest Missouri State. For another, the number of students applying must be considered. My own alma mater sends a prodigious amount of students to law, medical, and business schools, but very few attend graduate school. This is not because they can’t get in - those who apply typically get into extremely good programs - but rather because most Duke students simply don’t care to go into academia. Often PhD production rates are more indicative of an academic vs. pre-professional focus than academic quality.</p>
<p>[Top</a> 50 Schools That Produce Science PhDs - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>